The war on terrorism, with its potential effects on the supply of Mideast
oil, has seemingly generated a debate over America's energy policy. But
the only two sides we hear are the environmentalists, who exhort us to
use less oil, and the timid supporters of the oil industry--who are conceding
environmentalism's basic premise.

The National Resources Defense Council's Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for
example, calls on Congress to "reduce our dependency [on foreign
oil]" by raising fuel-efficiency standards. New York Times columnist
Paul Krugman argues that now is the time "to prevent another dangerous
surge in oil consumption." The Union of Concerned Scientists insists
that we "secure our energy future" by "reduc[ing] our reliance
on imported and domestic oil."

The ostensible rationale for cutting energy consumption is that America
is running out of oil. Environmentalists point to the 33 percent decline
in domestic production of crude oil over the last 25 years as a sign of
impending scarcity. Given the new potential disruptions in Mideast supplies,
they say, the only solution is for Americans to sacrifice their standard
of living and make do with less.

As irrational as that "solution" is, a close inspection of
the facts reveals a far more insidious agenda. The environmentalists'
actual premise is not that we are running out of oil--but that the oil
companies should be stopped from finding it.

Consider the controversy over the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR).
In 1998 the United States Geological Survey found that ANWR's Coastal
Plain region contains between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels of oil--potentially
10 percent of U.S. consumption for the next 30 years. But ANWR is legally
off-limits to drilling. Why?

America's vast Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contains approximately 46
billion barrels of oil, according to the Minerals Management Service.
There, too, environmental controls severely restrict access to the oil.
The voices alleging that supply is running short are the same ones opposing
new exploration and development. For thirty years environmentalists have
been sealing off millions of acres of oil-laden reserves--thereby creating
the decreasing domestic supply. Again, why?

Their concern about problems like oil spills is just a facade. Environmentalists
are resistant to any technological advances that minimize the possibility
of such occurrences. And they are utterly indifferent to all the hardships
caused by the absence of petroleum products that would otherwise be available.
What they really believe is that energy production per se is undesirable,
because it "violates" the earth's natural state.

According to the Sierra Club, bringing technology to ANWR would "destroy
the wilderness even if [drilling] is carried on with immaculate care."
The Alaska Wilderness League declares that "drilling the wildest
place in America is objectionable no matter how it's packaged." And
Senator Joseph Lieberman says ANWR development "would cause irreversible
damage to one of God's most awesome creations." What damage? The
"damage" of reshaping nature to serve human needs.

The ruse, by now, should be clear. What threatens us is not any physical
scarcity, but a politically created one. Environmentalists want us to
produce, and consume, less energy, because they value untouched nature
above human comfort. The declaration by the radical group Earth First
that our "industrial culture must be dismantled," is a consistent
application of environmentalist ideology.

Almost as bad, though, is the capitulation by the alleged defenders of
energy development. The American Petroleum Institute, for instance, argues
for ANWR development--with the appeasing claim that the wildlife there
will remain unaffected. And Congressional Republicans, instead of categorically
upholding man's right to use nature to sustain his life, are quibbling
with their opponents over whether ANWR will yield 30 or 13 billion barrels
of oil.

These "defenders" should be asserting that the production of
even a single barrel of oil should not be stopped by a wish to preserve
the caribou or the tundra. Human beings have rights; wildernesses do not.
Laying pipelines along a frozen wasteland benefits man; keeping that wasteland
"pristine" does not. Today, particularly as the architects of
our foreign policy worry about reductions in the output of Persian Gulf
oil, there is one obvious way to ensure abundant, reliable sources of
energy: free the American producers from the shackles of environmentalism.